It is difficult to think of any phrase from the world of work that sounds more contemporary or sensible than we have to be flexible, particularly within an organization that seeks to portray itself as adaptive, cooperative, and visionary. Flexibility implies independence, confidence, and adaptability, and thus it is rare for workers to find fault with the concept itself. The context, however, shifts dramatically when the phrase is used to describe ambiguous time frames, shifting duties, delayed hiring decisions, or indefinite expectations that continually shift without ever taking shape. Under such circumstances, workers may come to understand what lies behind the rhetoric: the corporation wants to maintain its flexibility while workers bear the burden of the uncertainty caused by the shifting parameters.As noted by Gallup in their ongoing workplace studies, flexible work arrangements are most effective in cases where expectations are explicitly stated and not just left vague because most employees cope more easily with change than with an undefined expectation of what is supposed to happen. This is relevant for the context in question because flexibility is different from instability, even though many businesses may treat these two terms as interchangeable. While employees may adapt quite effectively in response to changes when their responsibilities and timelines are still transparent, what they have difficulty dealing with is organizing their lives around uncertainty, since the business continues making changes while leaving them in a stand-by mode.131135350Employees usually notice quickly when flexibility becomes one-sidedIn reality, the phrase usually comes up when there is some organizational planning going on but not completed yet, as the organization's leadership is still uncertain about the number of people to hire, about the budget, about attendance at the office, about travels, and other important decisions that the company needs to make. It is not the fact of uncertainty in general that matters. Most workers know very well that business operations are conducted under dynamic circumstances. What really counts is when such an uncertainty trickles down, whereas no safeguards for protecting the precious time and effort of employees are established along with that.This drift is more likely to happen slowly rather than abruptly for workers. Work meetings will be scheduled to begin later in the evening. There will be an ambiguous increased burden on individuals; deciphering availability will be difficult, and personal schedules will remain vague as leadership fails to make clear the parameters established within the organization. In addition, Gallup’s study of employee burnout shows that unmanageable workloads and ambiguous communication are mutually reinforcing elements, as employees feel stressed not only from their burdens at work but from uncertainty in terms of success and shifting demands.The healthiest response is clarifying what is actually flexibleAnother reason that organizations like the term flexibility is that it makes for a softer term than telling staff that there is no leadership decision yet made, no firm staff plan, or an ever-moving set of priorities. In volatile business environments, this can sometimes even be seen as responsible and reasonable on management's part. However, employees require more certainty regarding workloads, timing, and personal considerations to be able to make any kind of realistic decisions regarding these matters. The APA's Work in America survey showed that workload, respect, and clarity in communication have a great influence on perceived stress among employees and long-term well-being. Therefore, it does not mean that the only solution is to discard flexibility altogether, but rather to force a more accurate definition of what flexibility really means in this situation. It will help employees find out which elements of their working agreements are flexible, what could potentially cause any future changes, and when they could expect these discussions to take place again. The conversation can thus remain operational without getting emotionally entangled, but can test out the fairness of uncertainty. Yet, the main issue lies not in flexibility itself but in the way it transfers risks unilaterally.